BackgroundMounting evidence shows that multi-intervention programmes for hypertension treatment are more effective than an isolated pharmacological strategy. Full economic evaluations of hypertension management programmes are scarce and contain methodological limitations. The aim of the study was to evaluate if a hypertension management programme for elderly patients is cost-effective compared to usual care from the perspective of a third-party payer.MethodsWe built a cost-effectiveness model using published evidence of effectiveness of a comprehensive hypertension programme vs. usual care for patients 65 years or older at a community hospital in Buenos Aires, Argentina. We explored incremental cost-effectiveness between groups. The model used a life-time framework adopting a third-party payer's perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated in International Dollars per life-year gained. We performed a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) to explore variable uncertainty.ResultsThe ICER for the base-case of the "Hypertension Programme" versus the "Usual care" approach was 1,124 International Dollars per life-year gained. PSA did not significantly influence results. The programme had a probability of 43% of being dominant (more effective and less costly) and, overall, 95% chance of being cost-effective.DiscussionResults showed that "Hypertension Programme" had high probabilities of being cost-effective under a wide range of scenarios. This is the first sound cost-effectiveness study to assess a comprehensive hypertension programme versus usual care. This study measures hard outcomes and explores robustness through a probabilistic sensitivity analysis.ConclusionsThe comprehensive hypertension programme had high probabilities of being cost-effective versus usual care. This study supports the idea that similar programmes could be the preferred strategy in countries and within health care systems where hypertension treatment for elderly patients is a standard practice.

Background Although there is growing utilisation of intermediate care to improve the health and well-being of older adults with complex care needs, there is no international agreement on how it is defined, limiting comparability between studies and reducing the ability to scale effective interventions. Aim To identify and define the characteristics of intermediate care models. Methods A scoping review, a modified two-round electronic Delphi study involving 27 multi-professional experts from 13 countries, and a virtual consensus meeting were conducted. Results Sixty-six records were included in the scoping review, which identified four main themes: transitions, components, benefits and interchangeability. These formed the basis of the first round of the Delphi survey. After Round 2, 16 statements were agreed, refined and collapsed further. Consensus was established for 10 statements addressing the definitions, purpose, target populations, approach to care and organisation of intermediate care models. Discussion There was agreement that intermediate care represents time-limited services which ensure continuity and quality of care, promote recovery, restore independence and confidence at the interface between home and acute services, with transitional care representing a subset of intermediate care. Models are best delivered by an interdisciplinary team within an integrated health and social care system where a single contact point optimises service access, communication and coordination. Conclusions This study identified key defining features of intermediate care to improve understanding and to support comparisons between models and studies evaluating them. More research is required to develop operational definitions for use in different healthcare systems.

OBJECTIVE Diabetes prevalence is increasing rapidly in rural areas of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), but there are limited data on the performance of health systems in delivering equitable and effective care to rural populations. We therefore assessed rural-urban differences in diabetes care and control in LMICs. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We pooled individual-level data from nationally representative health surveys in 42 countries. We used Poisson regression models to estimate age-adjusted differences in the proportion of individuals with diabetes in rural versus urban areas achieving performance measures for the diagnosis, treatment, and control of diabetes and associated cardiovascular risk factors. We examined differences across the pooled sample, by sex, and by country. RESULTS The pooled sample from 42 countries included 840,110 individuals (35,404 with diabetes). Compared with urban populations with diabetes, rural populations had ∼15–30% lower relative risk of achieving performance measures for diabetes diagnosis and treatment. Rural populations with diagnosed diabetes had a 14% (95% CI 5–22%) lower relative risk of glycemic control, 6% (95% CI −5 to 16%) lower relative risk of blood pressure control, and 23% (95% CI 2–39%) lower relative risk of cholesterol control. Rural women with diabetes had lower achievement of performance measures relating to control than urban women, whereas among men, differences were small. CONCLUSIONS Rural populations with diabetes experience substantial inequities in the achievement of diabetes performance measures in LMICs. Programs and policies aiming to strengthen global diabetes care must consider the unique challenges experienced by rural populations.

No abstract